Low down on labradoodles

[Maddy]

3 hours ago, Dogsfevr said:

Actually this term is being used by ANKC members with the new laws coming in & i don't see it as an issue depending on the terms..
You have a bred that will never be bred in large quantities & a bred that comes under scrutiny by name so if any new laws came in about Greyhounds could potentiality be devastating ,given the gene pool is so small dogs being placed out as a guardianship programme to ensure a healthy future isn't a bad thing ,the issue is the terms placed on the dogs .In the OP case no sane breeder would consider that remotely ethical .

 

The greyhound gene pool is as small as it is because people insist on overusing popular sires. Just look at how many litters Barcia Bale has sired- https://fasttrack.grv.org.au/Dog/Litters/-710494 Roughly 945 litters, assuming some of the bitches missed. That number is staggering and frankly, also pretty disgusting. 

If the industry cared at all about maintaining genetic diversity, they'd cap numbers of litters a dog can sire. Instead, you have the canine equivalents of Genghis Khan, siring thousands of pups and squeezing that gene pool even tighter. Guardianship programs won't help when every dog is some other dog's half brother. And if you breed your dogs like a Habsburg revival, you're doing the breed potentially irreparable damage. 

[Dogsfevr]

18 hours ago, Maddy said:

The greyhound gene pool is as small as it is because people insist on overusing popular sires. Just look at how many litters Barcia Bale has sired- https://fasttrack.grv.org.au/Dog/Litters/-710494 Roughly 945 litters, assuming some of the bitches missed. That number is staggering and frankly, also pretty disgusting. 

If the industry cared at all about maintaining genetic diversity, they'd cap numbers of litters a dog can sire. Instead, you have the canine equivalents of Genghis Khan, siring thousands of pups and squeezing that gene pool even tighter. Guardianship programs won't help when every dog is some other dog's half brother. And if you breed your dogs like a Habsburg revival, you're doing the breed potentially irreparable damage. 

Im not talking about Racers .
 

[Maddy]

On 01/08/2018 at 10:56 AM, Dogsfevr said:

Im not talking about Racers .
 

Sorry, it was impossible to discern that from your post. 
Perhaps you could specify which new laws are going to potentially impact the genetic diversity of showbred greyhounds, given they obviously aren't subject to any of the rules for the breeding of racing bred greyhounds.

[Jed]

I would like to add a little to this subject.  As a very long term breeder, I don't think  the bitch living with a family and going away to whelp is very fair to the bitch - to be going back to the breeder for 6 weeks+ to whelp and rear pups outside of her regular home has to be very stressful for her, and it is difficult for the owner  to part with their bitch on a regular basis. All bitches are different - I once whelped one for a friend who had forgotten she had booked to go to crufts and put the bitch in pup.  The girl had a happy, sunny nature, settled in as if she had always been here, loved and raised her pups without any problems, and without a care in the world.

Others fret and sulk, and the odd one will even abort her puppies, but you don't know what they will do until you try.

Most unfair. They might only be dogs, but they are deserving of our best efforts, I think.

Additionally, pregnancy and birth carry their own special risks - many many more than a pet dog, and there are a myriad of reasons why a bitch who has whelped, or needed a caesarian might die, and they are  all legitimate ones.

As a breeder, I could not face telling someone their pet, which I had taken back to whelp, had died.  All too sad, and all too hard. And really, unnecessary.

And it seems to me that breeders would only do this if they were lazy, greedy, or had a problem with dog numbers and their council.
 

[The Spotted Devil]

I agree @Jed but there are ways to mitigate it.

 

On numbers I need a permit for more than 2 dogs and I’m on 3/4 acre in the hills. It’s very strict here so it’s impossible for me to do anything with my lines long term. 

 

Most of my puppies and owners stay in close contact, we catch up for training, play dates, meals at the local pub or my house and sometimes the pups stay for a few days or even a month in one case. And the dogs just slot in together. Although mine would prefer it if the puppies could grow up a bit faster lol 

 

But I know I do things differently than a lot of people so you make a fair call for the majority. 

[JRG]

I think you are only seeing part of the picture Jed.

For a start, anyone who gets a pup on breeding terms from me, pays absolutely nothing for it.

By the time it is old enough to breed from, it will probably have spent many days/weeks with us eg when it has been in season, when it’s owners are on holiday (ie free board) or when visiting, so they are quite familiar with our set up and routine.

I think it is a win/win situation - the owners get a top class bitch/dog for nothing, I get one or two litters which help to keep the gene pool fluid.

I should also add that, over the years, I have placed out a lot of animals that I never bred from. —various reasons, pups rarely turn out as you think they will!

 

[YOLO]

You just can't win with some people.
If a breeder keeps more than 2 bitches, that's a "puppy mill"
but when the breeder wants to place them with families, well apparently that's wrong also.
Everybody wants to own dogs, but apparently we have to pretend they are delivered by magic fairies.

But what really gripes me is those who proclaim "of we would never buy from a Breeder, we only take rescue dogs."  So people who mostly are trying to do the right thing, and produce healthy typey dogs, are apparently evil, but you'll indirectly support the backyard abominators and various miscreant idiots who allow their misbegotten mongrels to breed and then dump the offspring.

Conceptually, there's nothing wrong with the idea of a Labradoodle.  Every dog breed originated from somewhere and generally involved some form of crossing to acheive the desired results.  But as with any breeder, you need to look at their practices.  Are the parents sound and typey, have they been hip/elbow/eye checked, do they follow responsible breeding practices.

IMHO the HUGE problem with many so-called "designer crosses" is that they aren't.  If I try to sell you some misbegotten piece of fluff, and tell you it's a Poodle, you'll pretty soon spot that it's not.  But claim it's a CaverShitzaPoo, and you really have no idea.  Worse still, you're conned into thinking you have something desirable. 
My daughter, God love her, who unfortunately lives on the other side of the country, bought what was supposed to be a "Groodle," a Golden crossed with a Standard.  Pigs arse, and that's what the poor dog looks like.

Contrary to most claims, such dogs are not inherently "hypoallergenic."  Allergies are caused by proteins, usually present in the dander and secretions.  Some breeds have more problematic proteins than others.  Unless you know the genes that cause them, and can selectively breed dogs without those genes, it's a pig in a poke.
Poodles shed less, that's not the same thing, but its why they need to be clipped or you wind up with a pet shrub. 

[westiemum]

 Great post Big D.